A Tale of Two Sheriffs
- jemzpierson
- Jan 12
- 3 min read
“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief and the epoch of incredulity, it was a season of light, it was the season of darkness….We were all going directly to Heaven, and we were all going the other way….”
I’m paraphrasing the words Charles Dickens wrote in 1859 to recall his point that things may change but they stay the same. In a 21st century world where we can hold an image in our hands of an event taking place thousands of miles away in real time, we still see that world through our own colored glasses, viewing the same event and coming to opposite understandings. A woman is shot, she was a victim, she was a terrorist. A federal agent fires, it was reckless, it was justified.
Here in Washington state, we have the example of two leading figures of authority coming to opposite views. Sheriff Sanders of Thurston County has said he sees a cop breaking with standard operating procedure, standing in front of a vehicle, escalating the danger to himself, and, in his view, unnecessarily shooting a mother of three. Meanwhile, Sheriff Swank of Pierce County, speaking at a church event, argued that his authority ultimately derives from being elected, and suggested the woman would still be alive had she complied with law enforcement.
The story runs deeper than a momentary clash between two sheriffs. Keith Swank has been openly critical of Washington state’s policy limiting cooperation with ICE and has framed law enforcement authority as flowing directly from electoral victory, an outlook that treats enforcement decisions as inherently legitimate because the government in power won the election. That worldview leaves little room for scrutiny, restraint, or disagreement over tactics. Swank underscored this posture by appearing at a church event alongside Michael Flynn, a former national security adviser who was convicted of a felony for lying to federal investigators (later pardoned) and who now promotes a hardline, loyalty-based view of power. To critics, that pairing, and the message it conveyed, suggested not just support for law enforcement, but an embrace of the idea that authority itself confers moral correctness, even when the use of force is in question.
These two sheriffs, standing just miles apart in geography but worlds apart in interpretation, reflect a broader national divide: one sees an unnecessary use of force; the other sees duty and order. In a country with instant information but deeply entrenched viewpoints, we still ask the same question Dickens posed: Which story are we choosing to believe? And what does that choice say about us?
I want to be clear about what this contrast does, and does not, represent. I support law enforcement, and I support officers who do their jobs with professionalism, restraint, and respect for human life. That is precisely why Sheriff Sanders’ response matters. His willingness to question tactics, to name avoidable escalation, and to insist on standards is not anti-police. It is pro-professionalism. Accountability is not a threat to law enforcement; it is what preserves public trust in it.
What I reject is the idea that power justifies itself. The notion that being elected, or wearing a badge, makes an action beyond question is a dangerous one. Authority in a democracy does not flow from force alone; it flows from law, restraint, and responsibility. Sheriff Sanders’ response reflects that tradition. Sheriff Swank’s rhetoric reflects a different worldview, one in which compliance is paramount and questioning authority is itself suspect.
This distinction matters here at home in Legislative District 35. The next representative serving Thurston, Mason, and Kitsap counties will help shape the laws and policies that govern training standards, use-of-force rules, and how Washington balances public safety with civil liberties. Voters are not being asked whether they support law enforcement. They are being asked whether they believe authority must always be exercised within clear limits, or whether power alone makes an action right.
Sources:
Comments